Send to

Choose Destination
Lancet. 2016 Mar 26;387(10025):1277-89. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01039-9. Epub 2016 Jan 27.

1-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis.

Author information

New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address:
Fu Wai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
The Christ Hospital, Heart and Vascular Center, Lindner Research Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
International Centre for Cardiovascular Health, Imperial College, London, UK.



Compared with metallic drug-eluting stents, bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) offer the potential to improve long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention. Whether or not these devices are as safe and effective as drug-eluting stents within the first year after implantation is unknown.


We did a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis of four randomised trials in which 3389 patients with stable coronary artery disease or a stabilised acute coronary syndrome were enrolled at 301 academic and medical centres in North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. These patients were randomly assigned to the everolimus-eluting Absorb BVS (n=2164) or the Xience cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (CoCr-EES; n=1225). The primary endpoints were the 1-year relative rates of the patient-oriented composite endpoint (all-cause mortality, all myocardial infarction, or all revascularisation) and the device-oriented composite endpoint of target lesion failure (cardiac mortality, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation). All analyses were by intention to treat. The four randomised trials included in our meta-analysis are all registered with, numbers NCT01751906, NCT01844284, NCT01923740, and NCT01425281.


The summary treatment effect for the 1-year relative rates of the patient-oriented composite endpoint did not differ significantly different between BVS and CoCr-EES (relative risk [RR] 1·09 [0·89-1·34], p=0·38). Similarly, the 1-year relative rates of the device-oriented composite endpoint did not differ between the groups (RR 1·22 [95% CI 0·91-1·64], p=0·17). Target vessel-related myocardial infarction was increased with BVS compared with CoCr-EES (RR 1·45 [95% CI 1·02-2·07], p=0·04), due in part to non-significant increases in peri-procedural myocardial infarction and device thrombosis with BVS (RR 2·09 [0·92-4·75], p=0·08). The relative rates of all-cause and cardiac mortality, all myocardial infarction, ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation, and all revascularisation did not differ between BVS and CoCr-EES. Results were similar after multivariable adjustment for baseline imbalances, and were consistent across most subgroups and in sensitivity analysis when two additional randomised trials with less than 1 year of follow-up were included.


In this meta-analysis, BVS did not lead to different rates of composite patient-oriented and device-oriented adverse events at 1-year follow-up compared with CoCr-EES.


Abbott Vascular.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center